• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Roles and Responsibilities for Program Management
 

Roles and Responsibilities for Program Management

on

  • 911 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
911
Views on SlideShare
911
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
22
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Roles and Responsibilities for Program Management Roles and Responsibilities for Program Management Document Transcript

    • VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ FINAL REPORT Value Engineering Study On The ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT FOR MAJOR SYSTEMS ACQUISITIONS & MAJOR PROJECTS Sponsored By Department of Energy Richland Operations Office SEPTEMBER 1993 VALUE ENGINEERING FIRM NAME: OVEST U. S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 889 Savannah, Georgia 31402-0889 Telephone: 912-652-5448 VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM MEMBERS Larry Williams, RL-PMDJune Hennig, RL-WMD Roger Freeberg, RL-ERDDick Walsh, ADSFM John Neath, RL-TDDSunil Patel, EM-341 Bob Long, RL-TWPEstraletta Green, RL-SID Bruce Nicoll, RL-TWDFred McAuley, Study Manager, OVEST Bob Hiegel, RL-PMDMartin Bandy, Chief, OVEST Rudy Guercia, RL-WMDHugh Bourne, OVEST Hayden Smith, RL-PMDCarl Canicatti, OVEST Jay Augustenborg, RL-WMDCharles Claghorn, OVEST Wu Chin, RL-PMDAl Scheller, OVEST Cindy Veneziano, RL-PMDCharles Fore, OVEST Glen Konzek, RL-TWPRobert Salthouse, LMI 1
    • ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ TABLE OF CONTENTS ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Proposals: Proposal No. 1 Designate a Single Project Manager with Clear Lines of Responsibility and Accountability for Each MSA and MP Project . . . . . . . 6 Proposal No. 2 Incorporate a Project Management Organization in Each Major Program and Maintain a RL Core Supporting Project Management Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Proposal No. 3 Create Single RL Organization to Manage Projects . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Proposal No. 4 Implement Integrated Matrix Project Teams for MSA's and MP's . . . . . . . . 19 Proposal No. 5 Establish a Systems Engineering Organization to Integrate RL Programs and Technology Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Proposal No. 6 Define Criteria for Assigning RL Environmental Restoration Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Proposal No. 7 Revise DOE Order 4700.1 - Delegation of Authority and Define Program Project Responsibilities . . . . . . . . 28 Proposal No. 8 Provide a Single Program Office with Responsibilities for Projects . . . . . . 31 VE Study Team Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 2
    • VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Supporting Documents: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Appendix A:Contact Directory - VE Study Team Listing Appendix B:FAST Diagram Appendix C:Cost Model - Richland Operations Office FY 93 Appendix D:Cost Model - Richland Operations Office FY 94 Appendix E:Original Speculation List Appendix F:Development Phase - Modified Speculation List Appendix G:Presentation Materials on RL Programs and Projects Appendix H:Comments on Final VE Study Report by Reviewers 3
    • VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ STUDY TITLE: RL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MSA'S AND MP'S STUDY SPONSOR: RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ The purpose of this Value Engineering study is to clarify, and establish specific roles and responsibilities between the various Program Management elements and Project Management elements for the management of Major Systems Acquisitions (MSA) and Major Projects (MP) at the Richland Operations Office (RL). This will be accomplished through better definition of roles and responsibilities between individual organizations, and mutual agreement to those roles and responsibilities for interface specific project tasks. Overall enhancement in Richland's program execution is therefore the goal of this Value Engineering study. The Richland Operations Office has field management responsibility for Hanford's multiple and diverse programs supporting bold new DOE missions objectives which focus on facility transition, environmental restoration, waste management, and science and technology development. Current and future funding levels reflect the intensity and complexity for implementation of programs and projects intended to meet DOE's objectives at Hanford. The current FY 93 budget of $1.77 billion is proposed to be increased by 12% for FY 94 to $1.99 billion. Environmental Restoration and Waste Management represents $1.618 billion or 81% of the FY 94 RL budget. The Value Engineering study workshop sessions were conducted in the Richland area during June 8 through 10, 1993. The VE study team was comprised of 14 representatives of RL's various Program and respective Project Management organizations, 2 representatives of DOE HQ, and 7 OVEST representatives. Roles and Responsibilities were studied using the Corps of Engineers' standard value engineering methodology, consisting of five phases: Information, Speculation, Analysis, Development, and Presentation. Presentations of how business is conducted at Richland were made by several RL team members. All VE team members were fully active in their participation in the study process. The most feasible team ideas were presented as proposals in a "Draft Report" for coordination with the RL study team and other DOE decision makers in July 1993. A series of informal review conferences was conducted in Richland to collect comments and revisions to the draft report. This "Final Report" incorporates recommendations and revisions to the draft. The report will be further coordinated as a working document and as such may undergo refinement prior to formal presentation of the study recommendations by RL team members to the RL top management staff. Additional major study efforts may be required to bring the VE study team's ideas to optimization. 4
    • VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SUMMARY OF VE RECOMMENDATIONS ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ STUDY TITLE: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MSA'S AND MP'S STUDY SPONSOR: RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ The summary of the VE study recommendations is presented as follows: PROPOSAL * ACTION ON NUMBER RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION 1 Designate a Single Project Manager with clear Lines of Responsibility and Accountability for Each MSA and MP Project (Applies to Nos. 2, 3 & 4) 2 Incorporate a Project Management Organization in Each Major Program and Maintain a RL Core Supporting Project Management Organization (Or) 3 Create Single RL Organization to Manage Projects (Or) 4 Implement Integrated Matrix Project Teams for MSA's and MP's 5 Establish a Systems Engineering Organization to Integrate RL Programs Planning and Technology Applications 6 Define Criteria for Assigning RL Environmental Restoration Projects 7 Revise DOE Order 4700.1 - Delegation of Authority and Define Program Project Responsibilities 8 Provide a Single Program Office with Responsibilities for Projects * Action on Recommendation: A - Accepted For Implementation R - Rejected For Just Reasons (Provide Supporting Comments) M - Modification of Proposal Recommended Additional comments are provided following the proposals for those items which were not developed as proposals, but were considered to be of substantial interest. Special attention may be given to any comment as may be deemed appropriate. 5
    • VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 1 PAGE 1 OF 3 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Designate a Single Project Manager with Clear Lines of Responsibility and Accountability for Each MSA and MP Project ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ CURRENT PROCEDURE OR POLICY: DOE 4700.1 requires that MSA/MP Projects have a single Project Manager assigned to each project with primary responsibility and accountability for execution of the project in accordance with the Project Plan and Project Management Plan. RLIP 4700.1 allows the project responsibilities to be split between the Field Project Management Organization and the Field Program Organization. This creates a problem when a single point of contact cannot be found to control project activities and communicate within RL, with DOE HQ and the contractors. RLIP 4700.1 was written in an environment of smaller projects in which the local Field Program Organization was the primary customer and the project had little, if any, direct communications with the HQ Program Office. DOE 4700.1 has since established the MSA/MP System which requires a Direct Field Project Manager/HQ Program Manager Reporting/Communication Relationship. Without a single individual in the field with responsibility and accountability for the entire project, authority and communication is very confusing. PROPOSED PROCEDURE OR POLICY: Assign a single Project Manager for each MSA/MP Project with primary responsibility and accountability for execution of all project activities in accordance with the Project Plan and Project Management Plan. Revise RLIP 4700.1 to be consistent with this management approach. The Project Manager should be assigned these responsibilities regardless of his location within the Field Organization. This proposal is applicable to Proposal Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Examples of project activities which would be assigned to the Project Manager, which currently are not, include the following: o Preparation and content of the Activity Data Sheet. o Preparation and content of the Project Data Sheet. o Project Specific Safety Documentation. o Project Specific NEPA Documentation. o Project Specific Permits. o Project Specific TPA milestones. 6
    • The Project Manager would then effectively maintain management and oversight of Technical Baseline, RL Schedule, Cost, and other critical elements. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES/JUSTIFICATION ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 1 PAGE 2 OF 3 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ADVANTAGES: 1. Establishes a single individual (the Project Manager) responsible and accountable for each project. 2. Creates clean lines of communication (internally, up to HQ, with contractors, and externally with stakeholders). 3. Avoid conflicts between field Program and Project Management elements. 4. Reduces redundancy and overlaps in accomplishing mission. 5. Provides opportunities to reach across organizational lines to select the best qualified RL personnel as Project Manager for a specific project: a. Project Manager may be assigned from a Program organization (Proposal No. 2). b. Program personnel/resources may be assigned to Project Management organization (Proposal No. 3). c. Project Management may be supported by a matrix team for control of critical elements (Proposal No. 4). DISADVANTAGES: 1. If the Project Manager is isolated from overall Program missions, there is potential lack of integration of Program needs. 2. This proposal is not consistent with the current work breakdown structure and Site Management System at RL. 3. If there is no similar alignment in HQ and contractor organizations, difficulties in communications are a consequence. JUSTIFICATION: 1. This proposal is consistent with DOE 4700.1, paragraph 7a, which mandates indicated (proposed) method of operating. Once a single Project Manager is assigned, the field contractors will align themselves to be consistent. It would be appropriate for HQ EM-30 to also assign a single HQ Program Manager with responsibility and accountability for the HQ Program Activities in accordance with the Project Plan. 7
    • ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES/JUSTIFICATION (Continued) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 1 PAGE 3 OF 3 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ JUSTIFICATION: (Continued) 2. This higher level program responsibility may not permit the dedicated attention required for controlling individual Project Management activities. This is the traditional role of a Project Manager and not a Program Manager. The latter may have responsibility for several projects in support of the program mission. This is the established method of managing many RL projects. 3. Defining the Project Manager's responsibilities in this manner is also critical to the successful implementation of Proposals Nos. 2, 3 or 4. VE TEAM MEMBERS DEVELOPING PROPOSAL: Larry Williams, RL-PMD, 509-376-4131 Estraletta Green, RL-SID, 509-376-1572 Rudy Guercia, RL-WMD, 509-376-5494 Hugh Bourne, OVEST, 912-652-5170 8
    • VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 2 PAGE 1 OF 6 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Incorporate a Project Management Organization in Each Major Program and Maintain a RL Core Supporting Project Management Organization ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ CURRENT PROCEDURE OR POLICY: Currently Project Management for RL Major System Acquisitions and Major Projects is handled or managed by four different methods: (1) Program Management and Project Management are under the same organization under a MSA umbrella (TWRS). (2) Program Management and Project Management are in separate organizations with separate reporting chains (WMD & PMD). (3) Under a MSA umbrella, Project Management is being accomplished by either Project Management Division (PMD) or Programs (ERD) with support from PMD on a project specific basis. (4) The Project is under one AM, but has no Program supporting element at RL (TDD). PROPOSED PROCEDURE OR POLICY: Each major Program should have a Project Management organization aligned under the same Program Organization or Division Director (AM or DD). Precedence as been established in the TWRS model where Project Management and the Program Management is under one common Program Management organization, and are in independent or separate divisions. Create a separate RL core Project Management organization to handle smaller projects special multi-program projects, and projects for smaller programs such as SID, PNL, etc., and charge it with the responsibility for maintaining RL Project Management Policies, contractual and technical expertise. A Project Management organization would be provided in the field Program organization for projects such as WRAP and HEC. Smaller (GPP's) will be assigned to RL's core PMD. The option is open for TWRS to continue with Project Management of Program Projects, and turn over smaller line item projects to PMD. This proposal needs all issues of roles and responsibilities for the Project Manager defined as identified by Proposal No.1. Delegation of responsibilities for project critical activities, permitting and statutory compliance are assigned to the Project Manager. 9
    • ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES/JUSTIFICATION ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 2 PAGE 2 OF 6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ADVANTAGES: 1. Provides a direct chain of authority and responsibility for Program and Project Management. 2. Roles and responsibilities are defined by one organization. Resolution of issues is accomplished by coordination of one AM or DD. 3. Better utilization of RL program resources by avoiding duplication of responsibilities between Programs and Projects. 4. Improves control of budget process for Projects under a Program. 5. Improves integration between Projects and Programs and enhances communications. 6. Work collectively toward same goals and objectives and Project Managers have more partnership of the overall Program. Avoids single project mentality. 7. Co-location of Project and Program personnel is compatible with current site moves. 8. Cross training of Project Management personnel to Programs such as conducting operations. 9. Could provide other career path opportunities for advancement of Project Management personnel. 10. Maintaining a separate Project Management organization to establish and maintain RL policy and procedure provides consistency across RL and minimizes duplication of administration burden for each program. DISADVANTAGES: 1. Breaks down existing checks and balances inherent between Programs and Project Management when Project Manager falls under management of the Program organization. There is potential loss of project baseline control due to Program driven needs. 2. Does not provide for single point of contact for Project Management for the RL Manager. It provides Project Management activity in each RL Program and a core RL Project Management organization. 10
    • ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES/JUSTIFICATION (Continued) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 2 PAGE 3 OF 6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ DISADVANTAGES: (Continued) 3. Fragments RL Project Management expertise and allows inconsistencies in methods of managing projects. 4. The breakdown of a centralized RL Project Management Organization could result in an increase in FTE's needed to operate several project Management Organizations. Project Management personnel would be limited within one program which will reduce the numbers of projects per manager and there is an increase in administrative burden in each program division. The efficiencies of one centralized Project Management Organization are lost. This issue requires further study to define real impact to FTE's. 5. Relationship with HQ-ADSFM would be fragmented and results in difficulties in providing consistent reports and documents across the board from RL to HQ. 6. Potential inconsistency of Project Management personnel qualifications according to PMD standards. JUSTIFICATION: While this proposal realigns Project Management responsibility under each RL Program Organization Assistant Manager (or Program Division Director), it maintains a separate core RL Project Management organization for developing and maintaining RL Project Management Policy as well as managing multipurpose projects or smaller Program Division projects. This recommendation will: (1) Provide for a vertical alignment of authority and responsibility for projects within a program (2) Enhance communications and integration between Program and Project Management within a program (3) Improves efficiencies in critical and limited program resources by avoiding duplication of efforts between Program and Project Management. This matter must be analyzed Program by Program to confirm impact to RL's overall operations. (4) Maintain consistency of Project Management policy within RL. 11
    • VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 2 PAGE 4 OF 6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ VE TEAM MEMBERS DEVELOPING PROPOSAL: June Hennig, RL-WMD, 509-372-0727 Roger Freeberg, RL-ERD, 509-276-7277 Wu Chin, RL-PMD, 509-376-5945 Charlie Claghorn, OVEST, 912-651-5173 12
    • FIGURE 1: PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN PROGRAM ORGANIZATION (TWRS MODEL) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 2 PAGE 5 OF 6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ 13
    • FIGURE 2: PROPOSED PROJECT MANAGEMENT IN PROGRAM ORGANIZATION ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 2 PAGE 6 OF 6 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
    • VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 3 PAGE NO.: 1 OF 4 DESCRIPTION: Create Single RL Organization to Manage Projects ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ CURRENT PROCEDURE OR POLICY: MSA and MP Project Management is split between three separate Assistant Manager organizations at RL (AME, AMT, and TWR). Additionally, AMA and AMW have program responsibilities for projects managed by AME. AME maintains site-wide policy for Project Management through promulgation of RLIP 4700.1. RL Policy for Project Management is established and maintained by PMD. PROPOSED PROCEDURE OR POLICY: This proposal recommends RL centralize as much as feasible the various Project Management Organizations. The Project Management organization should be aligned at the senior management level (Assistant Manager). Maintain separation of the Project Management function from the field Program organizational function so as to permit RL Program elements to focus on programming and operational issues. It may not be feasible to combine TWRS's projects with the rest of the RL projects since TWRS management system was mandated from DOE HQ. This proposal needs all issues of roles and responsibilities for the Project Manager defined as identified by Proposal No.1. Delegation of responsibilities for project critical activities, permitting and statutory compliance are assigned to the Project Manager. This proposal is an opposing alternative to establishing Project Management organizations in each major Program (Proposal No. 2). 15
    • ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES/PROPOSAL JUSTIFICATION ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 3 PAGE NO.: 2 OF 4 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ADVANTAGES: 1. There are inherent checks and balances established when Project and Program functions are separated. Project responsibilities are different from programs (Project's desire to maintain a rigid baseline vs. Program's desire to be as flexible as possible). 2. Centralizes project management policy and implementation for all RL programs and projects for consistency of project management, policies and procedures -- interpretation and implementation. 3. Provides for consistency in interpretation of DOE orders and guidance. 4. Representative on senior management staff for all projects. 5. Efficiencies are gained with centralized PM organization. 6. Relationships with HQ ADSFM for projects will be enhanced. 7. Consistency of personnel qualification according to PMD standards. 8. Maintains project management pool of expertise. 9. Provides a single RL organizational point of contact for Project Management of RL projects. DISADVANTAGES: 1. Incorporation of TWRS may not be possible as Management System was mandated by DOE HQ. 2. May be politically unacceptable from some senior management personnel. 3. May cause dispute resolution to take place at RL Manager level. 4. Duplication of effort between Program and Project Management. 16
    • ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES/PROPOSAL JUSTIFICATION (Continued) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 3 PAGE NO.: 3 OF 4 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ DISADVANTAGES: (Continued) 5. Increases need for FTE's for Projects. More FTE's or realignment of existing FTE's at expense of Program Organizations. This issue requires further study. 6. Separation of Project and Program Organizations does not enhance communication and support between the organization. JUSTIFICATION: Proposal is recommended for further indepth analyses based on the stated potential benefits to execution of MSA's and MP's under RL various programs. Justification should be also be based on efficiencies gained from centralization of RL Project Management within one organization. Incorporation of Proposal No.1 is recommended in support of this proposal also. All issues of roles and responsibilities for the Project Manager must be agreed to as defined as identified by Proposal No.1. Delegation of responsibilities for project critical activities, permitting and statutory compliance are assigned to the Project Manager. VE Team Members Developing Proposals: Larry Williams, RL-PMD, 509-376-4131 June Hennig, RL-WMD, 509-372-0727 Wu Chin, RL-PMD, 509-376-5945 Roger Freeberg, RL-ERD, 509-376-7277 Charley Claghorn, OVEST, 912/652-5173 17
    • FIGURE NO. 1: SINGLE RL PROJECT MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 3 PAGE NO.: 4 OF 4 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
    • VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 4 PAGE 1 OF 4 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Implement Integrated Matrix Project Teams for MSA's and MP's ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ CURRENT PROCEDURE OR POLICY: DOE 4700.1 specifies that the Project Manager (PM) has primary responsibility for the execution of the project. However, the PM does not have authority over many of the elements; e.g., environmental, safety, and financial, as prescribed be the DOE Order throughout RL's Program elements. Presently, Program elements are performing several critical project activities and the Project Management PM has little or no control on these activities. PROPOSED PROCEDURE OR POLICY: The proposal recommends that an integrated project team be established for MSA's and MP's which would include a Project Manager, Program representation, and others as may be identified to make a fully representative RL Matrix project team. SID, Procurement, Budget, Safety and other RL organizations would be identified on a specific program or project basis. This is a classic matrix team approach. Personnel are shared throughout RL organizations to fill team requirements and maximize efficient use of limited numbers of FTE's. The PM would function as the team leader and would be selected per DOE 4700.1 guidelines. This proposal needs all issues of roles and responsibilities for the Project Manager defined as identified by Proposal No.1. Delegation of responsibilities for project critical activities, permitting and statutory compliance are assigned to the Project Manager. Environmental Restoration Storage Disposal Facility (ERSDF), Solid Waste Operations Complex (SWOC) and Waste Receiving and Processing (WRAP I) are using the integrated team approach now. Some advantages are recognized on these projects, but all problems are not solved. 19
    • ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES/JUSTIFICATION ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 4 PAGE 2 OF 4 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ADVANTAGES: 1. Increased customer satisfaction participating and jointly executing projects as team player. 2. Program/Project interests would be represented. Places Program personnel directly in contact with Project Managers through matrix system. 3. Team building -- Increases communications and efficiencies. 4. Single point of accountability is maintained (as provided by Proposal No. 1 -- Responsibility and authority well defined and consolidated). 5. Increases flexibility to make changes. 6. Not inconsistent with DOE 4700.1. - easily implemented under current procedures and could be approved locally. 7. Increased probability of completing project on time/schedule and cost. 8. May get more from fewer FTE's. (Further study is needed to address impact on FTE's.) DISADVANTAGES: 1. Requires crossing organizational barriers; e.g., supervisor/employee relations. 2. Potential increased need for FTE's (See no. 8 above). 3. Co-location of team could result in team members being unaware of parent organizational policy changes/needs. (Only if dictated full time to team.) 4. May have disagreements on Project Manager selection within the team or externally in Programs or Projects. 5. PM does not maintain full control of matrix team members. Some team members may march to their on drum or have overriding priorities assigned from the parent organization. 6. Matrix team approach may not solve all problems. Some large organizations have shifted from matrix systems after considerable time using it. 20
    • ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES/JUSTIFICATION (Continued) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 4 PAGE 3 OF 4 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ JUSTIFICATION: RL projects and the management of projects would be a performed by a "Team of Teams". Talents of a pool of RL personnel will work together to execute projects, solve problems and deal with a specific projects challenges. The matrix team would be comprised of shared resources, matched to a projects requirements. The team may be very flexible. A stronger organization may support with additional resources to help on a team with special problems. The Project Management issues would require implementation of Proposal No.1 -- to establish responsibilities and authority. This proposal will increase trust, help build a common goal. Project Management roles may be determined by the team and may be from any organization represented on the team. A precedence has been set on other RL projects. The integrated management team approach may be implemented broadly, or on selected projects. VE TEAM MEMBERS DEVELOPING PROPOSAL: Rudy Guercia, RL-WMD, 509-376-5494 Bob Hiegel, RL-PMD, 509-376-1062 Al Scheller, OVEST, 912-652-5174 21
    • FIGURE 1: PROPOSED INTEGRATED MATRIX TEAM ORGANIZATION ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 4 PAGE 4 OF 4 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
    • VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 5 PAGE NO.: 1 OF 3 DESCRIPTION: Establish a Systems Engineering Organization to Cut Across Programs/Integrated Programs ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ CURRENT PROCEDURE OR POLICY: Each RL Program does its own technology development, establishes its own requirements and needs, and pursues its own Program mostly without consultation or integration with other RL Programs. This lack of overall coordination, project integration and technology sharing may result in less than fully effective programming of RL projects. Project facilities may serve similar purposes such as TWRS Solid Waste Complex, ERD's Environmental Restoration Storage/Disposal Facility and WMD's Solid Waste Program. PROPOSED PROCEDURE OR POLICY: A Systems Engineering Organization should be established that cuts across RL program lines, coordinates and integrates RL program projects for optimization of RL resources (work load, funds and personnel), minimizes duplications, improves communication, provides better technology applications and justification for proposed projects. This effort would result in a more intensely coordinated Five-Year Plan with likely considerable efficiencies in projects, project budgets and RL personnel work load. This activity may be assigned to the RL Office of Planning and Integration (OPI). 23
    • ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES/PROPOSAL JUSTIFICATION ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 5 PAGE NO.: 2 OF 3 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ADVANTAGES: 1. Provides a disciplined and focused group approach for strategic long term planning for RL's diverse programs, evaluates site needs and establishes priorities. 2. Serves as a resource or clearing house for RL Programs for evaluation of proposed projects. Provides better prioritization of RL resources. Provides disciplined evaluation of real needs and projects data base to support or justify budget request. 3. Brings the "systems expertise" and the proper people together to maximize the talent base for development of projects. 4. Provides for visibility of issues and trends. 5. Consolidation of R&D efforts for similar project needs. 6. Provides for reinforcement of Tri-Party Agreement milestones through oversight on all RL project prioritization. 7. Provides assistance in scheduling services and resources, such as contracting A/E services, VE Studies, NEPA reviews, permitting, etc. 8. Maximizes the operational/expense funding utilization for only those projects or programs that are truly needed. DISADVANTAGES: 1. Potentially another layer for permission (added bureaucracy) to initiate actions. Another "finger in the pie" to point fingers at in case of trouble. 2. Potential delays in getting the job done while the Systems Engineering reviews the proposals. 3. Programs may lose control of programming and providing for their program operational needs. Loss of ownership. 4. Resources for this group may have to come from existing FTE's. 24
    • ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES/PROPOSAL JUSTIFICATION (Continued) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 5 PAGE NO.: 3 OF 3 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ JUSTIFICATION: A Systems Engineering Organization would provide for a centralized focus for all programs and projects proposed for the RL/Hanford site. This organization would provide the brokerage house to review for consistency, duplications, consolidation of efforts to channel RL/Hanford resources for maximum pay back. The work of this organization will be the baseline for budget justifications and as such would provide credibility to program and project requests. This disciplined focus on site requirements provides a data base which enhances the Five-Year planning efforts as well as highlights Tri-Party Agreement requirements in relation to available resources. It is recommended that this proposal be given high priority for further study and development. The potential payback through RL programs and operational efficiencies may well justify establishing this Systems Engineering Organization. VE Team Members Developing Proposals: Wu Chin, RL-PMD, 509-376-5945 Bruce Nicoll, RL-TWD, 509-376-6006 Steve Burnum, RL-TWD, 509-376-8409 Bob Hiegel, RL-PMD, 509-376-1062 25
    • VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 6 PAGE 1 OF 2 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Define Criteria for Assigning RL Environmental Restoration Projects ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ CURRENT PROCEDURE OR POLICY: RLIP 4700.1 currently defines projects based on funding/cost estimate levels but does not clearly define when an environmental restoration activity should be managed as a project and assigned to the Project Management Division. The decision to treat a environmental activity under the ERP MSA umbrella as a project is currently being worked informally between ERD and PMD on a project specific basis. PROPOSED PROCEDURE OR POLICY: It is proposed that a definition and criteria be developed which would identify when environmental activities are "Projectized" and are to be assigned to PMD. The criteria would be documented in RLIP 4700.1. Project Management may also remain in ERD. RL may be able to define all ERP activities as "projects" and manage the umbrella MSA paperwork as a single entity. 26
    • ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES/JUSTIFICATION ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 6 PAGE 2 OF 2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ADVANTAGES: 1. Clarify roles/responsibilities for Environmental Restoration activities as projects. 2. Better work load planning, coordination and teamwork within AME. 3. Help project needs for future manpower. DISADVANTAGES: Time and resources are needed to develop criteria and revise RLIP 4700.1. JUSTIFICATION: The current policy is unclear and causes some confusion as to who and what organization must perform the work. The Environmental Restoration Program is under an "MSA" umbrella and, therefore, many activities can be considered "sub-projects" which are not traditional "projects" by accepted past definitions. A revised RLIP 4700.1 will clarify which of these umbrella "sub-projects" would be managed under traditional project management procedures and organization. VE TEAM MEMBERS DEVELOPING PROPOSALS: Bob Hiegel, RL-PMD, 509-376-1062 Roger Freeberg, RL-ERD, 509-376-7277 27
    • VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 7 PAGE 1 OF 3 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Revise DOE Order 4700.1 - Delegation of Authority and Definition of Program Project Responsibilities ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ CURRENT PROCEDURE OR POLICY: Current policy centralizes project approvals and responsibilities at Headquarters. It also does not recognize or adequately address field program office responsibilities or environmental restoration (EM-40) types of activity. There is no formal published HQ/RL procedure for all aspects of Program Management of projects. RLIP 4700.1 has Program responsibilities for projects, but may be clarified, improved or modified. Program responsibilities need to be established and fully coordinated with Project Management responsibilities and procedures established by DOE 4700.1. PROPOSED PROCEDURE OR POLICY: The following recommendations are made regarding revisions to DOE 4700.1: 1. Revise DOE 4700.1 to emphasize delegation of more authority to lower levels of management for ESAAB key decisions, project documentation (Project Plan) approvals, baselining change control, and Assistant Secretary programmatic responsibilities. 2. Define and recognize field program office responsibilities (project oversight, budgeting, reviews, approvals) based on a functional analysis of HQ/Field Programatic responsibility. Recognize unique requirements of environmental restoration activity such as indeterminate scope at initial project stages (extent and type of contamination) and lack of definitive clean-up standards, methods, and technology. 3. Establish Program Management project responsibilities and revise DOE 4700.1 and RLIP 4700.1 to document and promulgate responsibilities consistently for all RL programs. One Document (4700.1) covering both Programs and Project Management responsibilities will help reduce confusion and disagreements regarding roles and responsibilities for RL projects. 28
    • ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES/JUSTIFICATION ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 7 PAGE 2 OF 3 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ADVANTAGES: 1. Delegation -- minimizes project delays, cost savings, frees up time of senior DOE managers, reduces risk by increasing accountability at lower management levels. 2. Policy modifications to include field programmatic responsibilities and environmental restoration requirements in DOE 4700.1 will result in uniform operations office practices and permit opportunities for further delegations of authority. 3. One Document (4700.1) covering both Programs and Project responsibilities -- will help reduce confusion/disagreements. 4. Duplication will be eliminated by documenting responsibilities. Field RLIP 4700.1 would also define agreements, especially if DOE 4700.1 could not be revised. 5. Clearly delineates DOE Secretary's objectives of accountability. DISADVANTAGES: 1. Delegation has potential for loss of control at DOE HQ; requires additional procedures at the Operations Office; increases potential for deviations from program mission. 2. Constrictive DOE 4700.1 policies could unnecessarily inhibit operations office flexibility. 3. Constrains both Programs and Project by defining responsibilities -- would take ability to expedite actions from other organization. 4. If project responsibilities are defined by programs and not coordinated with DOE 4700.1 and recommended revisions, the responsibilities may not be consistent policy. JUSTIFICATION: One 4700.1 policy document covering both Programs and Projects will result in clear roles and responsibilities. Project execution should be enhanced and greater cost/management effectiveness would be achieved. Delegation of authority to field will result in more efficient and cost effective operations. It is also consistent with the Secretary of Energy's new philosophy and TQM. HQ manages programs not projects. 29
    • ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES/JUSTIFICATION (Continued) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 7 PAGE 3 OF 3 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ JUSTIFICATION: (Continued) Recommendations of proposed DOE 4700.1 policy changes can be considered for incorporation into DOE 4700.1 revisions currently underway by ADSFM. VE TEAM MEMBERS DEVELOPING PROPOSAL: Sunil Patel, DOE (EM-341), 301-903-7964 Dick Walsh, ADSFM/DOE, 202-586-4058 Hayden Smith, RL-PMD, 509-376-6144 Bob Hiegel, RL-PMD, 509-376-1062 Charles Fore, OVEST, 912/652-5171 Carl Canicatti, OVEST, 912/652-5172 Bob Salthouse, LMI (CE), 301-320-7289 30
    • VALUE ENGINEERING PROPOSAL ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 8 PAGE 1 OF 2 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Single Program Office POC for Projects ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ CURRENT PROCEDURE OR POLICY: Currently, both Field Program Office and DOE HQ Program Office provide guidance, direction and approval for projects. PROPOSED PROCEDURE OR POLICY: Define relationship between Program Office and Project Office, and assign project technical overview/communication responsibility to a single Program Office (either DOE HQ Program Office or Field Program Office). 31
    • ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES/JUSTIFICATION ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ PROPOSAL NO.: 8 PAGE 2 OF 2 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ADVANTAGES: 1. Avoids confusion; avoids conflict in guidance/direction; improves communication; provides cost effectiveness. 2. Potentially frees one Program Office for critical strategic planning. 3. Clearly delineates Secretary of Energy's objectives of Single Program Office responsibility and accountability. DISADVANTAGES: Takes one Program Office (either Field or DOE HQ) out of direct direction/oversight loop. JUSTIFICATION: Defines responsibilities to one Program Office and provides operational efficiency. VE TEAM MEMBERS DEVELOPING PROPOSALS: Sunil Patel, DOE (EM 341), 301-903-7964 Dick Walsh, ADSFM/DOE, 202-586-4058 Hayden Smith, RL-PMD, 509-376-6144 Charles Fore, OVEST, 912-652-5171 Carl Canicatti, OVEST, 912-652-5172 Bob Salthouse, LMI (CE), 301-320-7289 32
    • VE STUDY TEAM COMMENTS ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ 1. The following comments address the VE study ideas which are considered to be of significance, but could not fully developed into stand-alone proposals: A. The following items address RL ProjectProgram issues: (1). Align RL organization with Site Management Work Break Down Structure. Idea 38. Consider one assistant manager for each EM organization. Not equal jobs. For example there are currently 3 AM's with EM- 30. There are 6 AM's and they spread the work. Used to be only 2 AM's (administrative/technical). What are benefits? Organizing along EM lines won't solve the integration of projects and program issues. However, reorganizing by EM's is one possibility for reorganization. (2). Integrated working reporting/tracking system for each MSA/MP. One that will allow anyone to look across a project/program at what activities are occurring (dates, milestones, etc. are integrated). Broader than just one MSA/MP in line with 4700.5 requirements. Idea 44. Does everyone have access to same information? Yes on hard copy format. The reporting system is fragmented. Projects reporting system is in place. Programs are to build on that reporting system. However, Programs are building duplicate and different reporting systems. One system by EM, one by RL, and one by PR. Would a VE study be valuable in dealing with these issues? Issues are uniformity in reporting. RL SMS vs EM PTS - SMS roll-in to PTS. Projects are measure from start to completion of construction. SMS based on cumulative year to date information. Recognize this as an RL issue. (3). Develop accountability in the field for good project management. Develop field management systems for additional authority. Item 61. Needed to support request to HQ for more authority in Field. (4). Involve stakeholders in project decision-making (at the lowest levels.) Item 36. Process is needed to involve stakeholders as a matter of policy and planning, not as an after the fact issue. "New ballgame" for program people at this level. NEPA, etc., falls after the fact. Need to incorporate stakeholders values into the decision process. 4700 is written as a policy statement and needs to address the issue of involving stakeholders in early decision-making. 33
    • VE STUDY TEAM COMMENTS (Continued) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ (5.) Increase planning up-front to reduce changes down the road. Item 47. Definitely an issue with start-up projects without fully deciding or knowing what program it goes with. Also, there are problems with trying to incorporate new technology into old designs. RL is requested to have facilities on-line to accomplish some vague mission that needs technologies that are not yet developed. We are creating designs with no "guts", and are forced into commitments that are not defined or technologi-cally developed. Issue involves DOE commitments to public. There is need to do more program planning to figure out how to resolve a problem. Decide what technology is needed to solve that problem and then design the facility to house that technology. Addressing the new technologies that emerge through the length of the project is needed. An issue is evolving and changing regulatory standards and requirements. RL needs to have a better design change control system? Currently there's no baseline - everything is in a change of flux. Need to maintain some firm standards for the design, but in such a way that leaves design open for significant change (i.e., VE study that shows a cost reduction). Execution could be effected if more up-front project planning is appropriately implemented. (6.) The following are TQM related issues for consideration: a. Work to strengthen TQM implementation of trust between projects and programs. Item 34. b. Have Program and Project cross-train in each others functions. Implement through TQM and shadowing. Item 10. c. Increase communication between project managers and program customers. Item 16. d. Develop a formal process by which local program people can have input into design change. Item 25. Need process for incorporating changes by local program managers, and conflict resolution as part of this process. Having a way to agree to handle an impasse. Use means of achieving technical change already in place. TQM would resolve conflict issues. 34
    • VE STUDY TEAM COMMENTS (Continued) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ B. The following items address issues involving HQDOE: (1). Designate one HQ policy-maker. Item 43. Policies across HQ elements are not the same. EM vs PR (or any other element) - results in different policies coming out of headquarters. Consistent reporting policy as one example. One says do it; one says don't. One example is cost estimating. (2). HQ should fund programs/projects in the most cost effective way. Item 45. Fund cost effectively for life of the project, not in parts over longer FY's. Incremental funding results in funding driving execution vs by the criticality path. Issue is across the board. (3). HQ should consider raising the Dollar threshold for MSA's/MP's. Item 56. (4). Eliminate MP designation. Item 57. Subset - Thresholds of $50/$100 Million too close together for real distinction. Comment covers item 56 and 57. (5). Delegate Acquisition Executive responsibilities to the field office. Item 59. (6). Delegation of Approval for Project Documentation. Item 60. 3. The following are significant issues to be considered in ProjectProgram Management Proposals: A. DOE should be dealing with only one contractor. All the rest become subcontractors. Idea 12. Recognize pending 92-4 impact to TWRS. One contractor per program. (ERMAC, WHC, PNL) Other programs likely will follow. B. Assign additional FTE's and/or grade/pay increases. Idea 14. If you establish integrated management teams there is or may be a need for additional FTE's. If roles are more clearly defined it may reduce the actual workload. This may be the consequence of something else being developed. 35
    • VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Appendix A: Contract Directory - Value Engineering Study Team Appendix B: FAST Diagram - Roles and Responsibilities for Program Management and Project Management Appendix C: Cost Model - Richland Operations Office Funding for FY 93 Appendix D: Cost Model - Richland Operations Office Funding for FY 94 (Pending) Appendix E: Original Speculation List Appendix F: Development Phase - Modified Speculation List Appendix G: Presentation Materials on RL Programs and Projects Appendix H: Comments by Reviewers and Study Team Members 36
    • VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ APPENDIX A: CONTACT DIRECTORY - VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY TEAM ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
    • VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ APPENDIX B: FAST DIAGRAM ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
    • VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ APPENDIX B: FAST DIAGRAM ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
    • VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ APPENDIX C : COST MODEL - RL FUNDING FOR FY 93 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
    • VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ APPENDIX D: COST MODEL - RL FUNDING FOR FY 94 (PROPOSED) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
    • VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ APPENDIX E: ORIGINAL SPECULATION LIST ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MAJOR SYSTEMS ACQUISITIONS/MAJOR PROJECTS VALUE ENGINEERING STUDY 1. Each major program should have a project organization. 2. Each major program should have a project organization and one project organization for similar projects. 3. Each major activity should have one person designated with clear lines of authority and responsibility. 4. Change DOE 4700 to address the field programmatic responsibilities. 5. Establish integrated management teams for each MSA and MP. 6. Revise 4700 to delegate as much responsibility to the field as possible. 7. RL should develop a local policy for management of projects. 8. HQ and field offices should not be doing duplicate work. 9. Allow each division to manage their own projects while having PMD maintain the contractual/technical experts. Should still be responsible for maintaining project management policy. 10. Have June and Larry switch jobs for 9 months. 11. Relocate Waste Management back in the Federal Building. 12. DOE should be dealing with only one contractor. All the rest become subcontractors. 13. Co-locate program and project offices. (Not same as management team idea.) 14. Assign additional FTE's and/or grade/pay increases. 15. Rewriting 4700 to address program management interfaces. 16. Increase communication between project managers and program customers. Page 1 of 4
    • ORIGINAL SPECULATION LIST CONTINUED 17. Require project managers to operate their completed facilities for one year after completion of the facility (first year). 18. Require program managers to initiate a project for one to three years. 19. Ensure clear accountability (program/project) with contractor. Establish line management accountability between DOE and contractor. 20. Headquarters also. 21. Define specific responsibilities for programs and projects for each task. (reint) 22. Define criteria for assigning projects to PMD. 23. Require that all projects be assigned to PMD. 24. Create a single organization to manage projects. Pull TWRS people. "Back to the old days" 25. Develop a formal process by which local program people can have input into design change. Change control process for incorporating changes by local program managers. Conflict resolution process as part of this process. 26. For each MSA/MP project, assign a single project manager who has sole authority and responsibility for all tasks associated with the project which are required for successful completion of the project. 27. Define relationship between HQ and field. 28. Single point of contact in HQ for each project. 29. Establish program organizations with authority to implement all of their programs including projects. Two kinds of programs: self-contained programs with ability to go start to finish vs those who don't have that all the support groups within a single group or division. Establish self- contained programs for all RL programs. Create a dedicated program organization. 30. HQ should only be involved in oversight of programs not projects. Management of projects should be delegated to the field under the provisions of 4700. 31. Modify 4700 to allow more flexibility in EM projects. Page 2 OF 4
    • ORIGINAL SPECULATION LIST CONTINUED 32. Modify 4700 to include more recognition of the EM style/unique program needs. 33. Establish a systems engineering organization to cut across programs/integrate programs. 34. Work to strengthen TQM implementation of trust between projects and programs. 35. Execute TQM via methodology. 36. Involve stakeholders in project decision-making (at the lowest levels.) 37. Reduce the number of Assistant Managers at RL to achieve/improve integration between project and program. Group EM-40 with EM-40, EM-60 with EM-60 etc under one AM. 38. Align RL organization with Site Management Work Break Down Structure. 39. Find John N. another program. 40. Establish RL Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) for programs and projects. 41. Fully implement roles and responsibilities as currently outlined in 4700. (proposing a 25 page policy document with flowdown guidelines from there) 42. Realign HQ elements to be consistent with each other. EM- 30, EM-40 (and EM-60) with each other. Consistent policy as it impacts projects (for example some EM's have project groups; others do not.) 43. One HQ policy-maker. Policies across HQ elements are not the same. 44. Integrated working reporting/tracking system for each MSA/MP. One that will allow anyone to look across a project/program at what activities are occurring (dates, milestones etc are integrated). Broader than just one MSA/MP in line with 4700.5 requirements. 45. HQ should fund programs/projects in the most cost effective way. (Fund for life of the project not in parts over longer times.) 46. Real-time system for bottom-up changes (with quality data). Page 3 of 4
    • ORIGINAL SPECULATION LIST CONTINUED 47. Increase planning up front to reduce changes down the road. 48. Freeze design at the CDR stage. 49. Fully contract all A/E selections. (Let WHC select A/E's). 50. Apply the Accountability Rule. 51. Reduce DOE role in project management and place more trust in contractor's management of the projects. 52. Privatize all clean-up. 53. Clearly define criteria on goals and objectives/roles responsibilities from HQ on down. 54. Have RL define their mission and sell it to HQ. 55. Clearly define program mission. 56. Group programs/projects to minimize number of separate MSAs. 57. Raise $ threshold for MSAs/MPs. 58. Eliminate MP designation. 59. Eliminate subproject MSA by bringing them under a single umbrella MSA - handle as other line items. 60. Delegate Acquisition Executive responsibilities to the field office. 61. Delegation of Approval for Project Documentation. 62. Develop accountability in the field for good project management. Develop field management systems for additional authority. 63. Incentitize project managers to complete projects ahead of schedule and under budget. 64. RL delegate signature authority to a lower level. Page 4 of 4
    • VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ APPENDIX F: DEVELOPMENT PHASE - MODIFIED SPECULATION LIST ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ RL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MAJOR SYSTEMS ACQUISITIONS/MAJOR PROJECTS ITEMS PERTAINING TO DOE-RL: SPECULATION ITEM ACTIVITY [ITEMS ADDRESSING PROJECTPROGRAM ISSUES] 1. Each major program should have a project organization. Look at this one further. Included in consideration of #2. 2. Each major program should have a project organization, and one project organization for smaller programs. Includes #1, or stands alone. 9. Allow each division to manage their own projects while having PMD maintain the contractual/technical experts. Should still be responsible for maintaining project management policy. Merge with #2. Need to include policy statements into #2. 3. Each major activity should have one person designated with clear lines of authority and responsibility. Look at further. Address as Program or Project issue. 26. For each MSA/MP project, assign a single project manager who has sole authority and responsibility for all tasks associated with the project which are required for successful completion of the project. Including funding, safety, NEPA. Related to #3. (Program engineer and a project engineer - either one could be a project manager.) 5. Establish integrated management teams for each MSA and MP. Put together a team from the program and project sides. Someone within that team would be the one person with responsibility (team leader could be person discussed in item #3). Team leader could be a program or project person. Matrixed organization. Depending on size of project, could mean co-location for individuals on that team (depending on their other responsibilities). Co-location may or may not be possible because of people on multiple projects. However, that does not eliminate the possibility of integrated teams. Page 1 of 7
    • ITEMS PERTAINING TO DOE-RL: Continued SPECULATION ITEM ACTIVITY [ITEMS ADDRESSING PROJECTPROGRAM ISSUES] 7. RL should develop a local policy for program management of projects. Develop a sister document to 4700. All aspects of program management? Program Management Plan for implementation of projects. Field program responsibilities are in RLIP 4700 - may need modification. 15. Rewriting RLIP 4700 to address program management interfaces. Merge with #7. 40. Establish RL Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) for programs and projects. Interim action to reorganization and delegation of authority issues. Related to #7 and #15. If you do by program, you won't have a consistent policy. 41. Fully implement roles and responsibilities as currently outlined in 4700. (proposing a 25 page policy document with flowdown guidelines from there) Ties in to #40 and #7. Currently not in compliance with 4700. Make our current practices conform with 4700. Implement existing procedures. Will need to either write an MOU or revise RLIP 4700. 13. Co-locate program and project offices. (Not same as management team idea.) Can integrate without co-locating. Consider under #5 but may stand alone. 19. Ensure clear accountability (program/project) with contractor. Establish line management accountability between RL and contractor. Wouldn't have contractors reporting to one person in programs/one person in projects and playing the two against each other. HQ not supposed to interact directly with contractors. 21. Define specific responsibilities for programs and projects for each task. (re: INT) Want to see such a system in place within RL. Page 2 of 7
    • ITEMS PERTAINING TO DOE-RL: Continued SPECULATION ITEM ACTIVITY [ITEMS ADDRESSING PROJECTPROGRAM ISSUES] 22. Define criteria for assigning projects to PMD. Specifically for Environmental Restoration. Or is it a set of general criteria that would apply across projects? 24. Create a single organization to manage projects. Pull TWRS people. "Back to the old days". Have an AM for projects. 33. Establish a systems engineering organization to cut across programs/integrate programs. Technical issues that cut across programs needs to be considered and addressed. Each program does its own technology development. Is there any communication? Technical issues in addition to planning and integration issues. 38. Align RL organization with Site Management Work Break Down Structure. One assistant manager for each EM organization. Not equal jobs. For example there are currently 3 AM's with EM-30. What benefits? 6 AMs and they spread the work. Used to be only 2 AMs (administrative/technical). Organize along EM lines won't solve the integration of projects and program issues. Reorganize by EMs is one possibility for reorganization. 44. Integrated working reporting/tracking system for each MSA/MP. One that will allow anyone to look across a project/program at what activities are occurring (dates, milestones etc are integrated). Broader than just one MSA/MP in line with 4700.5 requirements. Perfect example of #43 not happening. Does everyone have access to same information - on hard copy format? Fragmented system. Project reporting system in place. Programs are to build on that reporting system, but they are building dupli-cate/different reporting systems. One system by EM, one by RL, and one by PR. Issue of uniform reporting. RL SMS vs EM PTS - SMS roll-in to PTS. Project measure from start to complete. SMS based on cumulative year to date information. Recognize this as an issue. Page 3 of 7
    • ITEMS PERTAINING TO DOE-RL: Continued SPECULATION ITEM ACTIVITY [SIGNIFICANT ISSUE TO BE CONSIDERED IN PROJECTPORGRAM MANAGEMENT] 12. DOE should be dealing with only one contractor. All the rest become subcontractors. Recognize pending. One contractor per program. (ERMAC, WHC, PNL) (Comment/observation) 14. Assign additional FTE's and/or grade/pay increases. If you establish integrated management teams there is need for additional FTE's. If roles are more clearly defined it may reduce the actual workload. Possibly out of scope with this study. May be the consequence of something else. 55. Group programs/projects to minimize number of separate MSAs. Waste Management Program to be done like TWRS. Include all projects and program into one MSA. 58. Eliminate subproject MSA by bringing them under a single umbrella MSA - handle as other line items. Part of #55. Part of delegating and reducing MSAs. 61. Develop accountability in the field for good project management. Develop field management systems for additional authority. Incorporate into #6. Needed to support request to HQ for more authority in Field. [ITEMS ADDRESSING STAKEHOLDERS] 36. Involve stakeholders in project decision-making (at the lowest levels.) Process to involve stakeholders as a matter of policy and planning, not as an after the fact issue. "New ballgame" for program people at this level. NEPA etc falls after the fact. Need to incorporate stakeholders values into the decision process. 4700 written as a policy statement needs to address the issue of involving stakeholders in decision- making. 47. Increase planning up-front to reduce changes down the road. Start projects without knowing what program it goes with. Definite issue. Also, problems with trying to incorporate new technology into old designs. Requested to have facilities on line to accomplish some vague mission that needs technologies that are not yet developed. Creating designs with no "guts". Page 4 of 7
    • ITEMS PERTAINING TO DOE-RL: Continued SPEC ITEM ACTIVITY [ITEMS ADDRESSING STAKEHOLDERS] 47. Increase planning up-front to reduce changes down the road. (Cont.) Forced into commitments that are not defined or technologically developed. Issue involves DOE commitments to public. Need to do program planning to figure out how to resolve a problem. Then decide what technology is needed to solve that problem and then design the facility to house that technology. Also need to address the new technologies that emerge through the length of the project. Another issue is evolving and changing regulatory standards and requirements. Have a better design change control system? Currently there's no baseline - everything is in a change of flux. Need some standards of this is it on the design but in such a way that leaves design open for significant change (ie. VE study that shows a cost reduction). Could be effected if #47 was appropriately implemented. [ITEMS TO BE ADDRESS BY TQM] 34. Work to strengthen TQM implementation of trust between projects and programs. 10. Have Program and Project cross-train in each others functions. Implement through TQM and shadowing. 16. Increase communication between project managers and program customers. TQM. Merge with #34. 25. Develop a formal process by which local program people can have input into design change. Change control process for incorporating changes by local program managers. Conflict resolution process as part of this process. Having a way to agree to handle an inpass. Refer to TQM (#34). Use means of achieving technical change already in place. TQM would resolve conflict issues. Bottom line up TQM - include 10 and 16. Page 5 of 7
    • ITEMS PERTAINING TO DOE-RL: Continued SPEC ITEM ACTIVITY [ITEMS TO BE ADDRESS BY TQM] 46. Real-time system for bottom-up changes (with quality data). A system where ideas could go up not just down. TQM issue - #34. ITEMS PERTAINING TO HQDOE: 4. Change DOE 4700 to acknowledge the field programmatic responsibilities. Keeper. Some potential problems with programs in 4700. Programs should be separate. Somehow there needs to be an acknowledgement in 4700 of field programs. 6. Revise DOE 4700 to delegate as much responsibility to the field as possible. 4700 is currently very broad. RL portion interprets it for local application. Delegating authority to lower level - for example Project Documentation. Major milestones/Key Decisions approval authority delegated to the field. 8. HQ and field offices should not be doing duplicate work. Avoid overlap. Recommendation to HQ?? HQ and Field office program offices are doing duplicate work. Define program responsibilities. Either HQ or Field should have program responsibilities for projects, not both. 20. Headquarters also (doing duplicate work effort). RL Projects and programs reporting to dual people in HQ. Definitive line of communication/accountability between RL and HQ. 27. Define relationship between HQ and field. 28. Single point of contact in HQ for each project. Currently 3 people - ADSFM, Program, Project. Is having a single point of contact feasible? In 4700 there is an identified program manager, but he is not always the single point of contact. 30. HQ should only be involved in oversight of programs not projects. Management of projects should be delegated to the field under the provisions of 4700. Tied to other issues of delegation of authority. Who has accountability of the programs? Can they manage the program before Congress and still delegate to field? See #8 and #6. Page 6 of 7
    • ITEMS PERTAINING TO HQDOE: Continued SPEC ITEM ACTIVITY 32. Modify 4700 to include more recognition/flexibility of the EM style/unique program needs. 42. Realign HQ elements to be consistent with each other. EM- 30, EM-40, and EM-60 with each other. Consistent policy as it impacts projects (for example some EM's have project groups; others do not.) Organizational line-up. Not line-up with RL. Be consistent with each other. EM-30 has split responsibilities (other groups do not). EM-30 going to one or others splitting - wither option could be feasible. Consistency is the key. See other HQ recommendations. 43. One HQ policy-maker. Policies across HQ elements are not the same. EM vs PR (or any other element) - different policies coming out of headquarters. Consistent reporting policy as one example. One says do it; one says don't. 45. HQ should fund programs/projects in the most cost effective way.(Fund for life of the project not in parts over longer times.) Incremental funding - funding driving execution vs driven by the criticality path. Issue across the board. 56. Raise $ threshold for MSAs/MPs. Recommendation to HQ. 57. Eliminate MP designation. Subset - Thresholds of $50/$100 Million too close together for real distinction. (Do either 56 or 57) 59. Delegate Acquisition Executive responsibilities to the field office. Related to #6. 60. Delegation of Approval for Project Documentation. Also included in #6. Page 7 of 7
    • VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ APPENDIX G: PRESENTATION MATERIALS ON RL PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ [SEALED INFORMATION - NOT AVAILABLE ON CCB]
    • 9/4/92 MISSION STATEMENT WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION Waste Management Division provides general program management for Hanford activities related to solid waste, liquid effluents, analytical services, and traffic management. Activities include: storage, treatment, and disposal of Hanford radioactive, mixed, and hazardous wastes; treatment and disposal of Hanford liquid effluents; all activities required to provide analytical services for less than 10 mR/hr, greater than 1OmR/hr, and TRU activities; and offsite and onsite transportation traffic management. WMD assures that all assigned operations are conducted in a safe and environmentally sound manner, and are in compliance with applicable regulations and standards. This is accomplished by providing technical and administrative direction, surveillance and safety overview to ensure safe and cost-effective contractor performance with respect to WMD activities. WMD also assures the overall coordination and technical evaluation of the submarine reactor compartment disposal program. The scope of WMD excludes the management of high-level waste (HLW) tanks, the interconnecting piping, the evaporator, or wastes which were contained in the HLW tanks. WMD Orqanizational Structure 1. Solid Waste and TransDortation Branch o Coordinates, and is responsible for the proper management of plant generated radioactive, mixed, or hazardous wastes from the Hanford Site, with the exception of those generated in non-DOE operations and those wastes originally stored in HLW tanks. Provides site surveillance to assure appropriate discipline in the conduct of waste management operations. o Plans and directs actions necessary to accomplish Tri-Party Agreement commitments associated with assigned waste operations. o Provides technical guidance during functional design activities related to assigned waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Provides DOE approved functional design criteria to the contractor. o Plans, coordinates, and provides general process develoDment for operational waste management programs associated with assigned facilities. o Participates in waste management aspects of planning for future facilities. o Develops and supports budgets necessary to support operation of assigned waste management facilities and programs. Provides input to the Five-Year Plan for waste operations. o Provides interface with DOE-HQ for assigned waste management activities including budgets, planning, milestones, etc. 1
    • o Disseminates information on long-term waste management to the public, State and local officials and the commercial sector as required. o Provides NEPA documentation and external affairs planning as required for RL, national, and international waste management programs. 2. Liauid Waste Branch o Coordinates, and is responsible for the proper management of plant generated liquid effluent wastes from the Hanford Site, with the exception of those generated in non-DOE operations and those wastes originally stored in HLW tanks. Provides site surveillance to assure appropriate discipline in the conduct of waste management operations. Overall responsibility for TPA Milestone M-17. o Plans and directs actions necessary to accomplish Tri-Party Agreement commitments, Consent Order and 216 Permitting activities associated with assigned waste operations. o Provides technical guidance during functional design activities related to assigned waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Provides DOE approved functional design criteria to the contractor. o Plans, coordinates, and provides general process development for operational waste management programs associated with assigned facilitles. o Participates in waste management aspects of planning for future facilities. o Develops and supports budgets necessary to support operation of assigned waste management facilities and programs. Provides input to the Five-Year Plan for waste operations. o Provides interface with DOE-HQ for assigned waste management activities including budgets, planning, milestones, etc. o Disseminates information on long-term waste management to the public, State and local officials and the commercial sector as required. o Provides NEPA documentation and external affairs planning as required for RL, national, and international waste management programs. o Develops and monitors the WMD Waste Minimization Program at Hanford. 2
    • Analytical Services Branch o Plans, coordinates, and provides general management for all analytical sampling and analyses activities on the Hanford Site. o Plans and directs actions necessary to accomplish Tri-Party Agreement commitments associated with assigned analytical services. o Provides technical guidance during functional design activities related to assigned analytical service facilities. Provides DOE approved functional design criteria to the contractor. o Coordinates, and is responsible for the proper management of Hanford Analytical laboratories. Provides site surveillance to assure appropriate discipline in the conduct of laboratory operations. o Participates in analytical lab aspects of planning for future facilities. Assures capacity requirements are met both onsite and offsite. o Develops and supports budgets necessary to support operation of assigned analytical lab facilities and programs. Provides input to the Five-Year Plan for analytical services. o Provides interface with DOE-HQ for assigned analytical services activities including budgets, planning, milestones, etc. o Disseminates information on analytical services to the public, State and local officials and the commercial sector as required. o Provides NEPA documentation and external affairs planning as required for RL, national, and international analytical services programs. Site Representatives The WMD Site Representatives serve as the primary point of contact between WMD and the Operating Contractor for daily operational activities at assigned facility(s). They maintain a high level of awareness of day-to-day operational activities at assigned facilities to ensure compliance with operational safety requirements and applicable orders and regulations. They implement facility-specific inspections/surveillances in accordance with Division requirements. Surveillance program details may vary between facilities, but at a minimum, shall include the following: o Observe and evaluate the interpretation and application of safety, health, and environmental regulations, orders and daily practices at the facility. 3
    • o Observe and evaluate the daily operations and maintenance practices at the facility in accordance with DOE 5480.19 and DOE 4330.4A, respectively. o Monitor changes in the plant operations and material condition including alarms and in service and out of service equipment. o Accumulate and trend data over periods of time to provide a better perspective within which to assess otherwise isolated observations and events. o Document observations to provide a basis for management evaluations of contractor performance. o Interface with the Operating Contractor / Facility Manager to discuss inspection and surveillance results and verify corrective actions. o Perform immediate follow-up on events reported under DOE 5000.3A, provide required input into the ORPS data base, and provide approval of final reports submitted by the Facility Manager. o Handle encounters involving employee concerns, including screening follow-up, and assistance to the employee to coordinate with DOE management, as warranted by circumstances. o Maintain effective communications with the RL-Management, contractor management, and the occurrence notification center. Site Representative Organizational Justification: Current Orqanization: The Site Representative function for Waste Management Division is currently organized as follows: WMD Staff o Tom Davies, Team Leader(1/2 time), B Plant Site Representative (1/2 time) o Keith Kline, Solid Waste Site Representative GSSC SuoPort Staff - In addition to DOE/RL staff, the WMD site representative function requires the support of the General Support Services Contractor (GSSC) as follows: o 1 FTE is assiqned to review Maintenance Issues at WMD facilities. o 1 FTE is assigned to review DOE 5000.3A/Occurrence Reporting Issues at WMD facilities. 4
    • o 1 FTE is assigned as a Site Representative at the WHC Analytical Laboratories (primarily, 222-S Labs.) o 1/2 FTE is assigned as a Site Representative at T Plant. (This individual provides Site Representative/programmatic support to non WMD activities [Grout Program] for the other half of his time.) o 1/2 FTE is assigned as a Site Representative for WMD Liquid Effluent Facilities -- 340 Complex and LERF project. (This individual provides WMD Liquid Effluent programmatic support for the other half of his assignment.) Assiqned Facilities - WMD provides the following facilities with the Site Representative coverage: o B Plant.........................Tom Davies (1/2 time) o Solid Waste Facilities..........Keith Kline o Analytical Labs.................Vacant o T Plant.........................Tom Albee, SWEC (1/2 time) o Liquid Effluents................Bruce Davis, SWEC (1/2 time) In addition, Frank Jobe (SWEC) reviews DOE 5000.3A/Occurrence Reporting issues for all of the above facilities, and Gus Gossell (SWEC) reviews Maintenance Issues for all of the above facilities. Drivers - The above resources are needed to provide Site Representative coverage for WMD facilities to insure compliance with the following "drivers": o DOE 5480.19, Conduct of Operations o DOE 5000.3A, Occurrence Reporting and Processing of Operations Information o DOE 4330.4A, Maintenance Management Program o Accountability Rule o Other DOE Orders addressing Nuclear Facility Safety o Environmental Regulations, WAC codes, etc. ProDosed Future Oraanization: The following staffing profile is recommended to enhance the WMD Site Representative function: o Site Representative Team Leader o B Plant Site Representative o Solid Waste Facilities Site Representative o Analytical Services Site Representatives (2) o T Plant/Liquid Waste Site Representative All WMD Site Representatives would be DOE/RL staff. Site Representatives would be located at or near their assigned facility(ies). 5
    • LIQUID WASTE BRANCH PROJECTS o Hanford Environmental Compliance Project - ADS2310-1 TCP - $233.lM completed in FY 95 Outstanding Work - W-007H B Plant (Mecca) 15.9M - W-OllH WSCF (Hennig) 32.5M - C-031H PFP (Mecca) 17.7M - W-024H B Plant (Mecca) 12.3M - 041H Hot Cells (Hennig) 14.9M - C-018H ETF (Hennig) 58.2M - W-049H 200A TEDF (Hennig) 47.3M - L-045H 300A TEDF (Hennig) 19.7M - B-680 PFP (Mecca) 7.4M - W-020 Cathodic Protection (Gerton) 7.2M o Phase II Effluent Treatment Facility ADS2300-1 TPC - #37.9M
    • LIQUID WASTE BRANCH PROGRAMS o Liquid Effluent Program ADS 2300-0, 2300-1, 2300-0, and 2310-1 o Waste and Decontamination Services Program ADS 2320-0 and 2340-0 o Environmental Monitoring Program ADS 7340-0, 7340-1, and 7350-0
    • LABORATORY PROJECTS W-001 222-S Ventilation and Electrical Upgrade 9.1M W-011H WSCF 22.0M W-041H Environmental Hot Cell 13.8M W-087 Radioactive Waste Lines 16.7M W-124 Waste Water Retention Facility .8M W-164 Sample Equipment Cleaning Facility .9M W-170 222-S Operational Support Facility 14.7M W-178 219-S Secondary Containment Upgrade 3.0M W-301 WSCF Operational Support Facility 3.8M
    • ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM o What is included: -- Cleanup of contamination from past activities (e.g., single-shell tank farms, low-level waste sites, pre-1970 transuranic contaminated sites) o What is not included: -- Currently generated hazardous wastes in active processes and facilities (e.g., single-shell tank waste, double-shell tank waste, Hanford Waste Vitrification Plant, grout, retrievably stored transuranic waste)
    • TYPE OF WASTE o Mixed ~70% o Radioactive ~20% o Hazardous ~2% o Solid ~8%
    • TYPE OF SITES o Liquid waste disposal -- Cribs -- Ponds -- Ditches -- Basins o Solid waste burial grounds o Underground tanks o Unplanned releases
    • Feasibility Studies under CERCLA]
    • Structure 2/15/93]
    • ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MAJOR SYSTEMS ACQUISITION/MAJOR PROJECTS WORKSHOP BRUCE NICOLL TANK WASTE DISPOSAL DIVISION June 8-10, 1993 Silver Cloud Motor Inn Kennewick, WA
    • RESPONSIBILITIES TANK WASTE DISPOSAL DIVISION TANK WASTE PROJECTS DIVISION o Program Development and Direction o Design o Approval of FDC o Construction o Permitting - overall coordination o Reporting - MSA o Operations o Procurement o Budgeting o A/E Selection o TPA - interaction with regulators o ESAAB presentations on projects o NEPA - overall coordination o Permitting, NEPA, & Safety o Safety - overall coordination o TWRS ESAAB
    • SUMMARY o Single organization o Personal interactions o Formal interactions o Overall coordination working o Problem not uniqe to RL
    • DNFSB 92-4 INFORMAL BRIEFING to RL PROGRAMS/PROJECTS VE TEAM by Glenn R. Konzek June 8, 1993
    • RL PROG/PROJ INFORMATION BRIEFING BACKGROUND o April & May, 1992, information briefings conducted with DNFSB Staff & Board Member on the MWTF Project o July 6, 1992, Cl~airman, DNFSB issued Recommendation 92-4 to Secretary Watkins. Two primary concerns: - Project Organization and Staff Competence (DOE & Contractors) - Meet the quantitative Safety Goals of SEN 35-91 o August Z8, 1992, Secretary Watkins accepts Recommendation, Implementation Plan due 90 days after acceptance by DOE. o December ?, 1992, Secretary request 45 day extension
    • RL PROG/PROJ INFORMATION BRIEFING BACKGROUND (con 't) o February 4, 1993, Implementation Plan submitted to DNFSB o February 10, 11, 1993, 2-day project technical presentation conducted o April Z3, 1993, DNFSB formally rejects Imp. Plan (includes extremely critical points), 30 days to re-submit o May Z4, 1993, Secretary O'Leary formally responds to rejection of Plan and initiates actions to "resolve" one of DNFSB's points (e.g., Technical authority). o Date ?1?1?, more issues to fall-out of 92-4 and be brought forward to EM-1 on an expedited basis
    • RL PROG/PROJ INFORMATION BRIEFING ISSUES FROM DNFSB RECOMMENDATION 92-4 716192 o Assure that MWTF and other defense nuclear facilities incorporate engineering principles and approaches...to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety; these include: - design conservative with respect to safety - design bases need to be clearly defined ... and documented - design bases/facility design need to reflect and incorporate requirements of appropriate standards - design, construction, start-up need to be performed by those who will ensure completed project is of quality necessary to provide adequate protection of public health and safety - design to be organized so to have continuity through all phases - organization needs to have technically qualified personnel in numbers sufficient to provide direction and guidance to contractors, and to assess contractor's effectiveness - organization needs clear lines of responsibility, authority and accountability
    • RL PROG/PROJ INFORMATION BRIEFING ISSUES FROM DNFSB REJECTION LETTER, 4/23/93 o Revised Imp. Plan to show how new project organization will integrate DOE and contractor organizations into a single functional project management team. o Revised Imp. Plan must discuss delegation of authority necessary to achieve technical and management objectives, streamlining, and continuity through all phases. o Revised Imp. Plan must reflect urgent need to implement changes. MWTF is neither sufficiently defined nor organized. o Revised Imp. Plan must specify definitive implementation dates for actions that will assure both DOE and contractor organization have personnel of the technical and managerial competence to assure effective project execution.
    • RL PROG/PROJ INFORMATION BRIEFING RECENT ISSUES: CONTRACT & TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT Re: Letter, Secretary, DOE to Chairman, DNFSB, Response to Rejection Letter for 92-4, dated May 24, 1993 Principle Points: - RL to authorize M&O technical direction & integration of existing design & construction contracts for TWRS - "Award of new contracts for design & construction of TWRS facilities will be responsibility of the M&O contractor" - New EM Assistant Secretary will evaluate options to improve staff capabilities at RL - Extension of 60 days requested (due date July 23, 1993)
    • RL PROG/PROJ INFORMATION BRIEFING RECENT ISSUES: (con't) Re: Letter, Wagoner, DOE to Anderson, WHC, Delegation of authority for Technical direction," dated May 26, 1993 Principle Points: - WHC assumes all technical direction authority to 4 prime TWRS contractors, (Government Representatives will not give technical direction) - Government Representatives will overview WHC
    • RL PROG/PROJ INFORMATION BRIEFING RECENT ISSUES: (con't) Actions initiated, or planned, by TWRS (HQ, RL, & WHC): o WHC TWRS Tasl( Team developed to address broad issues of Recommendation o 2nd issue paper drafted to address stand-down options of MWTF (Grumbly to decide week (of June 7, 1993) o Outline & Schedule for turnover of contract administration authority to WHC on the 4 TWRS prime contracts o Establish TWRS Program level System Engineering effort
    • RL PROG/PROJ INFORMATION BRIEFING RECENT ISSUES: (con't) o HQ draft policy statement defining roles for "owner," "design authority," and "design agent" o Establish RL/WHC TWRS Responsibility Assignment Matrix o RL to discuss/plan staffing study based on "new" roles o Imp. Plan re-write to be based on larger Project Management "deficiencies" than the MWTF (MWTF symptomatic of all DOE MSAs?) o By Law, Imp. Plan actions are to be completed in one year (DNFSB reserves judgement on closure of recommendations based on buy-in of Imp. Plan details).
    • RL PROG/PROJ INFORMATION BRIEFING General Consensus: o MWTF "target example" for all of DOE MSA/MPs to follow once 92-4 Imp. Pla satisfactorily accepted (timing sometime in August/Sept. 1993) o All TWRS projects to assess functional & operational requirements basis o Systems Engineering & Configuration Control at Program Levels need to be implemented (Demonstrate Rationale & total control of changing Mission) o Qualification & Training paramount in assuring Public Safety & Health (Note: Qualification and training plan drafted for MWTF, next will be TWRS as a whole) o Clear lines of authority & responsibilities need to be established and documented o Demonstrate compliance witll SEN 35-91 in all actions o Continuity w/in TWRS sought, eventually all of Hanford & DOE
    • RL PROG/PROJ INFORMATION BRIEFING GRK'S PERSONAL COMMENTS o Programs/projects of all RL factions will eventually have to conform to TWRS (MWTF) methodology for conducting business as a result of extremely high visibility & interest by Assistant Secretary, Secretary, and DNFSB. o F&ORs to become norm for all projects regardless of dollar level or current project stage. o DOE & Contractor organizations will be configured to demonstrate an integrated single functional project management team. o "Owner," "Design Authority," & "Design Agent" definitions will clearly be associated with implementation of John Wagoner's delegation of technical direction authority to WHC, and future roles between RL Programs/Projects o RL Program Systems Engineering to become an integral decision tool on all Justification of Mission Needs, (projects will clearly lack credibility otherwise). o Criteria or measurements for determining successful execution have to be established at the onset. o Predict a 2 to 3 year transition to the "new" project management style
    • VALUE ENGINEERING TEAM STUDY ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ APPENDIX H: COMMENTS ON FINAL VE STUDY REPORT BY REVIEWERS ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK